The Non-existence of Finite Projective Planes of. Order 10. C. W. H. Lam, L. Thiel, and S. Swiercz. 15 January, 1989

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Non-existence of Finite Projective Planes of. Order 10. C. W. H. Lam, L. Thiel, and S. Swiercz. 15 January, 1989"

Bethany Marsh
6 years ago
Views:

1 The Non-existence of Finite Projective Planes of Order 10 C. W. H. Lam, L. Thiel, and S. Swiercz 15 January, 1989 Dedicated to the memory of Herbert J. Ryser Abstract This note reports the result of a computer search which shows that no 19-point conguration can be extended to a complete nite projective plane of order 10. Previous work has shown that such a plane, if it exists, must contain 24, point congurations. Together, these results imply the non-existence of a projective plane of order 10. This note presents a brief summary of the previous work and gives some details of the methodology which are not covered by earlier publications. It also argues that, even when the possibility of undetected software or hardware errors is taken into account, the probability is very small that an undiscovered plane of order 10 is missed by all the computer searches. AMS Subject Classication(1980): 05B25, 51E15, 05B05 1 Introduction A nite projective plane of order n, with n > 0, is a collection of n 2 +n+1 lines and n 2 +n+1 points such that 1. every line contains n + 1 points, 2. every point is on n + 1 lines, 3. any two distinct lines intersect at exactly one point, and This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada under Grants A9373, A9413, 0011, and by the Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l'aide a la Recherche under Grants EQ2369 and EQ

2 4. any two distinct points lie on exactly one line. It is known that a plane of order n exists if n is a prime power. The rst value of n which is not a prime power is 6. Tarry [18] proved in 1900 that a pair of orthogonal latin squares of order 6 does not exist, which by Bose's 1938 result [3] implies that a projective plane of order 6 does not exist. The celebrated Bruck-Ryser theorem [4] provided another explanation of the non-existence of the plane of order 6. The next open value is n = 10. This note reports the result of a computer search for 19-point congurations, which, when taken together with previous results, implies that a plane of order 10 does not exist. This is the rst example which shows the necessary condition of the Bruck-Ryser theorem is not sucient. In Section 2, we give the basic denitions and a summary of the previous work that has a direct implication on this non-existence result. In Section 3, we present some further details of the latest computer search, together with some of its raw data. In Section 4, we speculate on the possibility of the existence of an undiscovered plane of order 10 that is missed by all the computer searches. 2 Denitions and Summary of Previous Work One way to represent a projective plane is to use an incidence matrix A of size n 2 + n + 1 by n 2 + n+1. The columns represent the points and the rows represent the lines. The entry A ij is 1 if point j is on line i; otherwise, it is 0. In terms of an incidence matrix, the property of being a projective plane is translated into: 1. A has constant row sum n + 1, 2. A has constant column sum n + 1, 3. the inner product of any two distinct rows of A is 1, and 2

3 4. the inner product of any two distinct columns of A is 1. In 1970, several researchers [1, 15] started studying the binary error-correcting code associated with a projective plane of order 10. Let A be the incidence matrix of such a plane. Let S be the vector space generated by the rows of A over F 2. A vector in S is called a codeword. The weight of a codeword is the number of 1's in the codeword. Let w i be the number of codewords of weight i. We dene the weight enumerator of S to be X 111 w i x i : i=0 Each codeword of weight i corresponds to a conguration with i points; please see [8] for more detail. We shall use the terms codeword of weight i and i-point conguration interchangeably. In [1], it was noted that the weight enumerator of S is uniquely determined once w12, w15, and w16 are known. In [15], MacWilliams, Sloane, and Thompson showed, using a computer, that w15 = 0. In [5], Bruen and Fisher pointed out that w15 = 0 follows from an earlier computing result by Denniston [7]. In 1983, we completed a computer search which showed that a codeword of weight 12 cannot be completed to a plane [10]; and so, w12 = 0. Carter [6] in 1974 showed that there are six starting 16-point congurations. He completed a computer search for four of the cases and part of the fth. In 1985, we completed the remaining cases [12]. None of the cases can be completed to a plane; hence, w16 = 0. Since w12, w15, and w16 are all known, one can compute the weight enumerator, for example, by using the formula in [16]. In particular, if a projective plane of order 10 exists, then it must contain 24,675 codewords of weight 19. Hence, the question of the existence of this projective plane can be settled by searching for 19-point congurations. Let v be a set of 19 points which form a codeword of weight 19. In [8], Hall showed that there are 6 heavy lines each containing 5 points of v, 37 triple lines each containing 3 points of v, and 68 single lines each containing 1 point of v. 3

4 There are 66 dierent incidence structures of the 6 heavy lines with the 19 points of v. These are our starting cases. In [11], 21 of these cases are eliminated by theoretical arguments. The remaining 45 cases are eliminated by the latest computer search. 3 Methodology and Results In this section, we describe briey what the computer programs do and present some of the results. Most of the computing techniques for this search have been covered in [14, 17] and we shall not repeat them. Each starting case of a 19-point conguration is a 6 by 19 submatrix of the incidence matrix. Next, we nd all the possible incidence of these 19 points on the triple lines. These incidence on the heavy and triple lines form a 43 by 19 submatrix, which is called an A2. Two A2's are isomorphic if one can be changed into another by independent row and column permutations. Isomorphism testing is performed to keep only the non-isomorphic A2's. Next, we complete each A2 to a 111 by 19 submatrix. By using row permutations, there is only one 111 by 19 submatrix for each A2. We then work on the remaining portion of the incidence matrix. Before we continue the discussion, let us introduce a few new terms. The 19 points (columns) that form the weight 19 codeword are called the inside points (columns). The remaining points (columns) are the outside points (columns). Each heavy line contains six outside points. The incidence of these 6 points with all the lines forms a block. For each A2, we choose one of the heavy lines to dene our rst block (B1). After constructing a B1, we choose another heavy line and construct a block 2 (B2). Here, things become complicated. If these two heavy lines intersect at an outside point, then block 2 contains only 5 new columns; otherwise, it contains 6. For eciency purposes, it is much better to choose a pair of heavy lines with an outside intersection. After B2, we choose a third heavy line and construct block 3 (B3). B3 may dene either 4, 5 or 6 new columns. 4

5 case A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 3 2,501 49, ,786 50,865, , , , ,426, , ,241 1,180, ,135, ,397 22, , ,555,861 3, , , , ,590, , , , ,555, , , , ,099, ,958 24, , ,970,087 2, , , ,179 67,576, , , ,932 76,343, , ,239 1,143, ,012, ,033 19, , ,234,836 4, , , , ,608, , ,053 1,185, ,649, ,970 43,446 1,025, ,173,889 6, , ,842 10,784,064 7, , , , ,933, ,331 48,697 6,506,350 5, , , , ,680, ,215 10, ,913 75,742,622 1, ,010 6,126 60,782 8,947,768 6, , , , ,246, ,679 9, ,205 16,577,023 12, ,855 20, ,588 91,645,137 1, , , ,203 80,481 18,595, ,743 14,025 2,991, ,064 17,050 84,511 28,227, ,685 7, ,506 77,618,882 1, ,074 10,792,612 9, ,656 49, ,079 44,283, ,554 5,215 57,551 7,350,159 5, ,329 14, , ,916,027 2, , , ,114 19,731 2,349, ,514 40,894 7,374, ,162 50,324 6,667,582 5,110 Total 343,266 3,730,718 12,468,340 4,177,640,149 78,492 Table 1: Results for cases with outside intersections 5

6 case A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 1 20,129 4,221,458 6,791,584,644 3,168,411, , ,861 1,927,254 4,569,912,128 2,082,460, , ,219 1,227,914 1,703,821,550 1,714,000,011 45, ,538 21,252,105 40,489,180,403 16,906,372,320 1,564, ,879 20,485,157 39,075,289,979 18,210,863,021 1,659, ,221 4,877,425 9,609,727,470 5,405,054, , ,410 1,350,785 3,275,119,750 1,832,805, , ,272 37,047,849 20,058,399 1,813 Total 296,358 55,356, ,551,683,773 49,340,025,845 4,595,404 Table 2: Results for cases without outside intersections Similarly, we extend the incidence matrix to blocks 4 and 5. In general, we choose the blocks to concentrate the outside intersections in the rst few blocks. Of course, there may not be any outside intersections. In fact, there are eight starting cases with no outside intersections, and they are the dicult cases which were handled by the CRAY supercomputer. Table 1 lists the cases with outside intersections. These cases are easy enough to be handled by a collection of ve VAX computers at Concordia. The cases were searched in the order of increasing diculty. In order to reduce the amount of time required by the last few dicult cases, we used an extra partial isomorphism testing. Let v be a codeword of weight 19 and let s and t be two heavy lines with an outside intersection. Then the new codeword v + s + t is again of weight 19 and its incidence pattern with a new set of 6 heavy lines must be one of the 66 starting cases. If this new pattern corresponds to one which is already done, there is no need to investigate this pattern any further. This method helped to reduce the search for the following cases: 7, 9, 15, 17, 24, 33, 48, and 55. Even with this reduction, the total computing time used at Concordia was the equivalent of 800 days of CPU time on a VAX- 11/780. Table 2 lists the cases with no outside intersections, which were run on a CRAY-1A and took an estimated 2,000 hours of computing. In both tables, we also list the number of 6

7 non-isomorphic A2's as well as the counts of the number of times the computer programs successfully completed the incidence matrix to the end of a block. Most of the work was done in extending a completed B2 to a B3. We estimated that the program investigated cases to nd the B3's. After trying out all the cases, we have not found any completion to a full incidence matrix. In fact, we have not found any matrix which completes to block 5. Hence, we have to conclude sadly that a plane of order 10 does not exist. 4 Correctness Speculations Because of the use of a computer, one should not consider these results as a \proof", in the traditional sense, that a plane of order 10 does not exist. They are experimental results and there is always a possibility of mistakes. Despite all these reservations, we are going to present reasons that the probability of the existence of an undiscovered plane of order 10 is very small. There are two types of possible mistakes, programming errors and hardware errors. Let us rst consider programming errors, which are by far the most common. We use two methods to try to avoid them. Whenever possible, we use two dierent programs and compare the results. The sixty-six starting congurations are generated by two dierent programs and are also checked by hand. We also have a simple but slow version of the program that attempts to extend an A2 to a complete plane. We run both programs for a few selected A2's and we compared the counts at the block boundaries. We nd no discrepancy, which gives us faith in the programs. The second method we employ is to apply internal consistency checking when generating the A2's, which is described in more general terms in [13]. Basically, when performing isomorphism testing, one can predict the number of times that each A2 is generated by the program. By keeping track of the count, we can at least check that the program performs as expected. Even with these safeguards, the only denitive statement 7

8 that we can make is that there is no hint of any errors in our programs. We hope that someone else will do an independent verication of the results. Towards this end, we have kept a careful log of all the searches. The second type of mistake is an undetected hardware error. The CRAY-1A is reported to have such errors at the rate of about one per one thousand hours of computing. A common error is the random changing of bits in a computer word, which may mean the loss of a branch of the search without us knowing about it. In fact, we did discover one such error. After a hardware failure, we reran the 1,000 A2's just before the malfunction. The counts for the last A2 processed before the failure had changed, signalling an undetected hardware error. Yet, if an undiscovered plane of order 10 exists, then it contains 24,675 codewords of weight 19. This means that the plane can be constructed as the extension of 24,675 A2's. If all the 24,675 A2's are isomorphic and an undetected hardware error happens to aect this A2, then our answer is wrong. Since there are about half a million A2's, the probability of a random undetected hardware error aecting this special A2 is about one in half a million. Since the plane is known to have a trivial collineation group [2, 9, 19], it is more likely that there are at least two non-isomorphic A2's amongst the 24,675 cases. In this case, the probability that they are all aected by undetected hardware errors is innitesimal. 5 Acknowledgement The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the Communications Research Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses at Princeton, New Jersey, for making their CRAY-1A available for us to run our programs when it was otherwise idle, and to Dr. Nick Patterson for giving us helpful suggestions and for looking after the day-to-day running of the program. 8

9 References [1] E. F. Assmus, Jr. and H. F. Mattson, Jr., \On the Possibility of a Projective Plane of Order 10," Algebraic Theory of Codes II, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Report AFCRL , Sylvania Electronic Systems, Needham Heights, Mass., [2] R. P. Anstee, M. Hall, Jr., and J. G. Thompson, \Planes of order 10 do not have a collineation of order 5," J. Comb. Theory, Series A, Vol. 29(1980), p. 39{58. [3] R. C. Bose, \On the application of the properties of Galois elds to the problem of construction of hyper-graeco-latin squares," Sankhy~a, Vol. 3(1938), p. 323{338. [4] R. H. Bruck and H. J. Ryser, \The non-existence of certain nite projective planes," Can. J. Math., Vol. 1(1949), p. 88{93. [5] A. Bruen and J. C. Fisher, \Blocking Sets, k-arcs and Nets of Order Ten," Advances in Math., Vol. 10(1973), p. 317{320. [6] J. L. Carter, \On the Existence of a Projective Plane of Order Ten," Ph. D. thesis, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, [7] R. H. F. Denniston, \Non-existence of a Certain Projective Plane," J. Austral. Math. Soc., Vol. 10(1969), p. 214{218. [8] M. Hall, Jr., \Congurations in a plane of order 10," Ann. Discrete Math., Vol. 6(1980), p. 157{174. [9] Z. Janko and T. van Trung, \Projective planes of order 10 do not have a collineation of order 3," J. Reine Angew. Math., Vol. 325(1981), p. 189{209. [10] C. W. H. Lam, L. Thiel, S. Swiercz, and J. McKay, \The Nonexistence of ovals in a projective plane of order 10," Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 45(1983), p. 319{321. [11] C. Lam, S. Crosseld, and L. Thiel, \Estimates of a computer search for a projective plane of order 10," Congressus Numerantium, Vol. 48(1985), p. 253{263. [12] C. W. H. Lam, L. Thiel, and S. Swiercz, \The Nonexistence of Code Words of Weight 16 in a Projective Plane of Order 10," J. Comb. Theory, Series A, Vol. 42(1986), p. 207{ 214. [13] C. W. H. Lam and L. H. Thiel, \Backtrack Search with Isomorph Rejection and Consistency Check," to appear in the J. of Symbolic Computation. [14] C. W. H. Lam, L. H. Thiel, and S. Swiercz, \A Computer Search for a Projective Plane of order 10," in Algebraic, Extremal and Metric Combinatorics 1986, London Mathematical Society, Lecture Notes Series 131, ed. Deza, Frankl and Rosenberg, p. 155{165, (1988). 9

10 [15] J. MacWilliams, N. J. A. Sloane, and J. G. Thompson, \On the existence of a projective plane of order 10," J. Comb. Theory, Series A., Vol. 14(1973), p. 66{78. [16] C. L. Mallows and N. J. A. Sloane, \Weight Enumerators of self-orthogonal Codes," Discrete Math., Vol. 9(1974), p. 391{400. [17] L. H. Thiel, C. Lam, and S. Swiercz, \Using a CRAY-1 to perform backtrack search," Proc. of the Second International Conference on Supercomputing, San Francisco, USA, Vol. III(1987), p. 92{99. [18] G. Tarry, \Le probleme des 36 ociers," C. R. Assoc. Fran. Av. Sci., Vol. 1(1900), p. 122{123, Vol. 2(1901), p. 170{203. [19] S. H. Whitesides, \Collineations of projective planes of order 10," Parts I and II, J. Comb. Theory, Series A, Vol. 26(1979), p. 249{277. Computer Science Department Concordia University Montreal Quebec Canada H3G 1M8 10

The Search for a Finite Projective Plane of Order 10

The Search for a Finite Projective Plane of Order 10 C. W. H. Lam Computer Science Department Concordia University Montréal Québec Canada H3G 1M8 November 30, 2005 Dedicated to the memory of Herbert J.